Is the Glass Ceiling a myth?

Despite the provocative headline that got you this far, I'm sure there's something to it.

So few women top executives exist that I'm sure there's some "boys club" reason behind it in the board rooms of major corporations where, not coincidentally, there are relatively few women.

But what about female line workers: the female clerks, saleswomen, scientists and engineers. Not the woman who aspires to being the CEO, but the woman who, like most men, just wants to earn a living.

I've often wondered about the statistics and have yet to find an answer to this question: are the statisticians comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?

Here's what I mean:

Most men are ready to travel or even relocate away from friends and family if it will improve their career opportunities. I strongly suspect that while many woman are also ready to improve their careers in this way, most women are not.

I strongly suspect that many women still head toward careers in line with natural feminine inclinations to nurture: teaching, nursing, veterinary care and assistantship jobs, art and craft-oriented jobs.

Add to this some of the disadvantages of women in the workplace such as, greater absenteeism (female health and family commitment reasons), more likely to be a smoker (less likely to give up a break in a crisis situation), and less likely to accept a career move if it means leaving office friends behind, and...

...I wonder what the stats about advancement opportunities and pay would look like if one compared the women who were more like men against their male counterparts.

The reply is, of course, if you don't like it, work someplace else. It's capitalism. Companies are not run for the benefit of their employees. It's management's legal obligation to get the most bang for the buck they can get out of their workers to maximize profits for the company's owners. If being generous or lenient serves that interest, then they should do that. If not, their obligation is not to. In high tech, you find a lot of very generous and open-minded employers. Of course, they want to keep a work force that is very mobile. Not so much in coal mines or insurance companies.

If companies are not run for the benefit of the employees and the companies only objective is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders then what possible incentive is there for the employee not to take every possible advantage of the system ?

Unseen- but the company sets out days as sick leave which means using them does not negatively impact job prospects . How can they know if he was sick or just wanted a day off? Now since most people don't buy stock in their company that is not an incentive not to take advantage of the system for the majority of people.

This is just one of those things about capitalism. it very seldom breeds much loyalty in its workers

Unseen- "It's management's legal obligation to get the most bang for the buck they can get out of their workers to maximize profits for the company's owners. If being generous or lenient serves that interest, then they should do that. If not, their obligation is not to"

""Character is what you have when the lights go out."

I am sorry but i disagree with you. I do not consider it a lack of character not to show complete servility to those who are exploiting me to the fullest extent possible. As far as i am concerned loyalty and respect is something that needs to be earned not simply taken for granted despite how they treat me.

And with half a brain you have more chance of being struck by lightning than being caught red handed with no possible explanation

Colleen - Yes, it is in mine. When my boy was born I was still not working yet (in school) but as soon as I did I was relieved to see that me and my x could have still managed it. My x couldn't really be out of work for 3 months and be as successful as she was/is - kk